|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted September 29, 2019 10:28 PM |
|
|
Well, since he himself says “Eric Clapton is the only guitar player who ever influenced me” I think it is pretty self-evident that he was very much... influenced indeed.
The kind (scope) of influence I’m talking about isnt as subjective as you imply. You can track down the evolution of styles and hear it. It is certainly not as subjective as personal taste. For instance, in the case of Prince versus MJ, I can easily tell you that Prince invented or combined so much more by himself and you can hear his “recipes” in many other musicians of today, especially in funky jazz. Where as MJ rather came up with fixed formulas that had been implied well. One, you can think of more like Tarantino, someone with a very distinctive style, which had been influential, even imitated directly, while the other is like a crafted director of big production block busters which were basically based on your typical Hollywood settings.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 29, 2019 11:16 PM |
|
|
Except, that if you watch the video I linked, at 25:35 he'll explain where he's got tapping from and you will hear the name JIMMY PAGE quite distinctly. So much for him saying Eric Clapton was his only ever influence.
And, sorry, "influence", is utterly subjective, because you cannot quantify it. You may think, listening to something, yes, there is this and that is - but it may be based on something else entirely (which in turn may be influenced by what you think the original artist was) - but the thing is, you cannot quantify the effect the influence(s) actually had.
Both Prince and MJ drew a lot from their parents and their childhood environment, although in a very different way. With a circus analogy, if MJ's family had been a high wire act, he would have been part of the show at the age of 5 and went on to eventually become the biggest hoigh wire act ever on his own, while Prince would have set up his own act - a couple of times during his life.
If you want to rate that, fine. I don't - why do I have to repeat that all the time? And I didn't read anything so far that would make me start with the rating either.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 30, 2019 12:58 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 01:01, 30 Sep 2019.
|
Dude, it’s naturally a hyperbole when someone says their only influence is x, but you can pretty much assume that person is their biggest influence, hence the hyperbole, no matter from whom you got your tapping. That’s why the original statement in my post was that Clapton was his biggest influence. (Cause I know he called him his only one.)
About the main subject, I can, of course, compare the magnitude of influence various artists have on others based on sound, style, structure, biographic info, tribute and historical perspective. Will it be as precise as something numerical (such as sales), of course not. But it sure wont be something nowhere near as subjective as your personal taste either, when you say something like “the impact Dylan had on popular music is beyond comparable to Backstreet Boys, no matter the record sales.” Now, had you read that last line somewhere else, instead of in the middle of debate, you’d agree with it in a second, and I happen to think you are aware of that. When it comes to sales, we have the phenomenon of “shooting stars.” They shine bright, but they pass by without much trace. Because of effective marketing, good looks, sometimes even sheer luck of being in the right place in the right time, an entertainment act sells millions and millions but they dont stand the test of time, they get easily forgotten. When looking back, one of the best ways to detect such acts is to notice how they had no impact on musical genres themselves. Why does this seem so impossible to you, I have no clue.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 30, 2019 09:01 AM |
|
|
And I have no clue what this discussion is about:
artu said:
JollyJoker said:
Drakon-Deus said:
Well, when someone says MJ was "better" because of his sales, I do have to respond, don't you think? 
Obviously I prefer Prince. That's it.
You might have answered that Rihanna has sold more (certified) records in the 14 years she is active now than MJ in nearly 50, so that would mean Rihanna is better than MJ.
Well, you also have to keep in mind that the custumor base is always expanding, both globally and locally. Selling a million records in 1955, 1975 and 2015 are totally different things. So even if you attribute any value to a musician purely on a sales base (or object to such a thing playing their game), you have to compare the ratio rather than strict numbers.
This was about artistic comparison, and I told Drakon, instead of defending Prince, he could have pointed to the fact that Rihanna has sold more records than MJ in one third of the time. Does that sound like a point in favor of taking record sales as a yardstick to answer the question of who'd be the better artist?
However, I also said that I don't like to rate artists and their output at all, at least against each other, because the end result will invariably be crappy and do many people injustice, and that includes the "influence".
Each person absorbs things around them and they play a role. Music in the radio, music parents, family and friends listen to or make, and maybe from a point on a specific interest - but strangely enough not everyone who has a certain age and happened to listen to Cream in the radio will get off on Eric Clapton, not even those who went on ending up as a guitar player.
Of course there is the IMPACT artists have, and here sales play a role. I think, Brian Eno said, the first record of the Velvet Underground didn't sell too well, but everyone who did buy it went on and founded a band. In hindsight, the Stooges were the first punk band and way ahead of their time, but their impact has been minimal to not-existant (and their sales as well). Their influence has been minimal as well - at the time. Later, when it was pointed out that the Stooges would have to be considered as the godfathers of punk, a lot of people started to listen to them, but does that really have any meaning?
So apart from quite obvious things this may all be very interesting, but it's also not helping in the rating department - which I'm not interested in, I add another time. I do not care whether Prince was a greater artist than MJ or vice versa, and I'm not interested in finding an answer to that question.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted September 30, 2019 10:05 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
I do not care whether Prince was a greater artist than MJ or vice versa, and I'm not interested in finding an answer to that question.
But some people care. Which is why I had that discussion in the first place. And then I thought of sharing the experience here.
Thanks to you and artu for tuning in. I found your discussion quite interesting as well.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 30, 2019 11:13 AM |
|
|
@JJ
No, it doesnt sound like you are in favor of using sales as a criteria, that’s why I mentioned “objecting to their argument using their game” and then I happened to mention that the impact artists have on music is far more important anyway.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 30, 2019 12:32 PM |
|
|
You mentioned “objecting to their argument using their game”?
I didn't read anything like that, only that the customer base is expanding and therefore sales in earlier times are worth more.
That's a point I tend to disagree with, because IF artists of old are REALLY influential, they sell records over a very long period of time - the Beatles were active until 1970, but they have sold a gazilion records after that.
Anyway, you should know meanwhile that I reject "objectivity" in art. It's pretty subjective, and who is to say that a little tune millions are humming over a period of a couple of weeks is worth less than some complex work only a handful of people really grasp? In the end it's about whether you like something or not and you know that there is no arguing about taste.
Sure, some artists are more impactful than others. George Clinton, for example. But then, looking at Funk, what about Sly Stone? Norman Whitfield? Motown Records? It's not that simple, and it doesn't really help in any way.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 30, 2019 06:35 PM |
|
|
Well, you may want to buy some glasses in that case, because it’s right in there, where you directly quoted me.
About the rest, we already discussed that and I have nothing to add, while there is no absolute objectivity in art (or evaluation of beauty, to be more precise) and a lot depends in your taste, I don’t believe in an absolute subjectivism either. And I think in practice, no one really does.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 30, 2019 08:59 PM |
|
|
You are right - I need new glasses. 
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted October 03, 2019 10:34 AM |
|
Edited by Galaad at 10:35, 03 Oct 2019.
|
Well yes taste is without doubt subjective but there is a part of objectivity in art, be it only for the technique or knowledge from the artist.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 03, 2019 11:51 AM |
|
|
I would disagree. Technique isn't "art" but CRAFT. "Knowledge" isn't art either, but "learning".
Imagine a stage magician. Technique is VERY important, whether it's a simple card trick or a complex illusion. Knowledge or learning as well - you need to know how a trick is working. Lastly - originality. How is the trick presented, are there new elements and so on.
However, the fundamental questions are, IS that even ART, and if YES, what makes it good or bad, when you want to rate it? Is it just the quality of the performance (when it comes to the artist) or is it the quality of the trick, and if the latter, what MAKES the quality of the trick any why would one trick be better than another? Is it the amount of perplexity it creates? Is it the simplicity of the illusion ...?
In popular music, technique isn't all that important, obviously. Keith Richards has never been an outstanding musician, technically.
Sure, technique can objectively be rated, but that's basically on the same level than, say, a racer in a car and their lap times when in the same car. It's craft, not art.
I said earlier, in my opinion you can call everything art that makes people's "hearts" react in some way. Simple pop tunes tend to lighten people's mood, making them, well, happier for a moment, which is probably the secret why they are so successful. And OF COURSE it's an art to make others happier.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 03, 2019 12:45 PM |
|
|
Well, with this definition you can also call a birthday cake, art.
Also, it is one thing to say even the most simplistic or shallow entertainment piece has an artistic, creative notion to it, it is another thing to say it is a completely subjective matter to decide if it is more artistic than an actual art piece. As I said earlier, there are different approaches and schools of thought, but no matter how you stretch it around, you will never seriously claim that a Garfield cartoon has more artistic value than Guernica, even if it gives you or even a million people, more joy than Guernica. You can do it as thinking exercise, of course.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 03, 2019 01:25 PM |
|
|
artu said:
... more artistic ...
It all depends on how art is defined. Do you have any reason to believe that "artistic" describes something that works the same way as, say, "weight", so that you can set pieces in relation to each other, and objectively decide that one os "heavier" than the other?
More reason to believe THAT than "artistic" being a binary description like pregnant, that something either IS artistic or NOT.
I tend to think that artistic is a binary term. For me, there isn't more or less artistic. Something is either artistic or not and comparing art doesn't make sense. Guernica is different art than a Garfield strip, and I don't see any reason to compare it, except maybe for "lasting impression" - subjective, of course.
But the point stands - why would you compare a painting with a cartoon?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 03, 2019 02:07 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 14:07, 03 Oct 2019.
|
It is an anology of you comparing, say, New Kids On the Block to Bach in terms of “art is absolutely subjective.” If all is binary, either both of them are art or not.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 03, 2019 02:29 PM |
|
|
Yes. Provided both their works fall under the definition of what art actually is, and I suppose they do.
Why would I (or anyone else) compare them? If you listen to Bach you either like that nor not (if you listen to music at all, that is). Same thing with the Kids. Why would you start COMPARING them?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 03, 2019 03:26 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:40, 03 Oct 2019.
|
Obviously, I’m not just sittin’ around comparing them out of nowhere. There is a context, an argument I disagree with, I’m using them as examples. Some B-movie can give me joy, a masterpiece of cinema can give me joy. While I’m watching the B-movie, I dont expect a masterpiece, so it does not disappoint me in terms of that. But if there is an argument such as “who’s to say this B-movie isnt as good as Citizen Kane” then the context is a very different one. I will elaborate later, not a convenient day for me.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted October 03, 2019 10:11 PM |
|
Edited by Galaad at 22:15, 03 Oct 2019.
|
JollyJoker said:
Technique isn't "art" but CRAFT. "Knowledge" isn't art either, but "learning".
I understand what you are saying but an artist precisely spends his whole life crafting his art and learning to get a deeper understanding of it with time. As a professional artist myself, I cannot untie these. This is particularly easy to hear while listening to classical or jazz performers. For instance you can say "this concertist has a better control of his sound -allowing him to express more of his sensitivity, than this other one", you could even go further and say one has more sensitivity than the other just based on the way he is playing; or "this jazzman follows harmony better than this one, or have a better time". Etc. Heck, you could even say "this metalhead has a better energy than this other one".  Whether you get more moved or not as an auditor is different. This applies to other forms of arts too but since we are in a music thread...
JJ said:
In popular music, technique isn't all that important, obviously.
Well it still is to some extent, it's not because a song is simply constructed that anyone can play it. You still need to be tight, to have groove, etc. All the crafting and learning actually takes a part in moving someone else's feeling. The Beatles didn't become legends just because they put four chords together, they put a lot of work into their art. Easily you can also compare two different cover bands.
JollyJoker said:
if YES, what makes it good or bad, when you want to rate it?
There is references. I partly answered to that above, it depends on what are musical codes. To be more specific, I can rate two perfomers covering a Charlie Parker song, and this rating will based on the criteria that makes the bop music what it is. The one playing poorly can be a very good musician but he doesn't know the rules or didn't practice enough the style he is playing.
____________
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted October 03, 2019 10:51 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 22:58, 03 Oct 2019.
|
This discussion is pointless. Art is measurable only if you can apply common metrics to it and you can do that only in specific context and even then you will have significant differences between the people doing the measurement. A piece of music sounds differently to a professional musician and to a regular commoner even if they have exactly the same "taste" in music, because the former knows what he/she's listening to, what effort has been put in making it, how the different bits combine, etc. and thus can appreciate it from a very different perspective compared to someone who just enjoys it (or not) - yet at the same time it will be a massive bull**** to say that you need to be a professional musician to tell if a piece of music is art or not, or is it good or not, simply because nobody will give a damn that some external party is passing judgment on something which you experience directly and can judge for yourself. Different people have different "depth" of sensory perception and information processing so you either find the the guy with the most sensitive ears and the best music-resonant brain on the planet and appoint him the ultimate judge of which piece of music is better or worse, then force everybody to agree with that conclusion, or you drop the whole thing.
I guess you can argue about the technical aspects though, that's measurable. 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 04, 2019 09:02 AM |
|
|
Which are the PERFORMING arts.
A PERFORMER (musician, dancer, actor, stage magician, pantomime ...) has a certain target to fulfill when what they perform is something well-known. In that case technical merits can be used to rate the PERFORMANCE - although there will be differences in the rating (just look to figure skating).
However, it gets more difficult when something NEW is performed - an actor not playing a character in a Shakespeare drama, but in something new, a newly composed music piece and so on). Here there is the performance as such, technical merits, but also the piece that has been performed.
Plus - the difference in recorded art and live art (which should be obvious). For example - backwards-played guitars (used in Tomorrow Never Knows by the Beatles for the first time, afaik), or a scene in a movie, played 30 times before the actors got it so that the director was satisfied, which isn't possible in a theater play or live concert.
Anyway - this is difference between content and package or, if you prefer, "presentation". I mean, if you consider the content as boring (uninteresting, doesn't touch you...) the presentation may be as professional and technically fine as it gets, you will just register it, spend the deserved applause to the performers, who, after all, did everything, but the thing wasn't for you.
I EDIT this to add a fun fact.
I think that "Strangers in the Night", sung by Frank Sinatra is known to a lot of people. Music was written by Bert Kaempfert for a movie, and I think Sinatra's record company bought the rights and let the guys write the text who had been successful with Spanis Eyes. End result was a smash hit by Sinatra (while the instrumental version by Kaempfert wasn't), the song earning a ton of prizes and whatnot.
Sinatra himself, however - didn't think much of it and didn't even like it. He used to sing it only as part of a medley. I think, at the end of his career he finally used to sing the whole song, but I read somwhere that he usually had some disparagaging comment before he'd go on and sing it.
This is a different case than Curt Cobain and Teen Spirit - a song he wrote himself and started to dislike because it was such a smashing success (telling him something was wrong with it - imo, an example of elitism). In this he was the exact opposite of Paul McCartney, who his whole life relished live performances and the fact that has obviously wrote a couple of, ummm, catchy tunes - in fact probably the biggest difference between him and John Lennon who in the late Beatles phase thought Macca's songs were too shallow.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 04, 2019 05:49 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:44, 04 Oct 2019.
|
The intro is mostly to Zenofex’s musician versus lay man listener argument but then I go back to the main thing. Really didn’t want to bother with the whole “quote by quote” thing.
To be able to read music and to know music are two very different things, one is about musical literacy, the other is about familiarity. Musical literacy is, of course, a great advantage when it comes to understanding music but it’s not a requirement. The key to understanding any musical genre is familiarity, experience with it, just like anything else, the more time you invest in something the more you are able to see the subtle differences. At that point a musician and a listener is not that different, in fact, the greatest musicians are ones who can also imagine themselves as pure listeners, those are the ones who can go directly to the juice instead of showing off with “impressive” circus tricks. The differences in your quality of hearing also doesn’t matter much (unless you are half-deaf or something), just like having an eagle-eye eyesight has nothing to do with your taste in cinema. At the core of it, this is a matter of culture (familiarity and experience) and studies show that the music that we relate to most is already defined around the age of 19-20 anyway. We can expand from there but we expand from a base taste and that, since we are all exposed to different pieces of music as a kid, is the subjective part of the equation indeed. Then what is the part that I find “not so subjective” about? First of all, this whole “if it is not scientifically measurable, it is all absolutely subjective” argument is one big very flawed exaggeration. There are many things in life that are not strictly measurable yet quite intelligable. We can not measure love (in the scientific sense) but we know when someone is loving us more than another, we can not measure sense of humour but we can immediately detect when someone does not have it, we can not measure integrity or hypocrisy, yet we claim to identify them all the time. So when it comes to the artistic value of a music piece, what is intelligible and not completely subjective? As already been said by me and others, technique is not that important in the realm of popular music, it helps if you play good of course, but it is not a deal breaker like in Classical and Jazz, if you are not that good a player. So I’ll save it for last.
1- ORIGINALITY: Some artists are unique and they are less replaceable than others. No matter the genre, if you listen to a form of music for long enough, you come to the point where you go “yeah, yeah, I heard ones like that a million times.” This is especially the case with pentatonic music genres, most folk music from anywhere around the world including the blues, classical rock, pop songs, they are mostly your typical pentatonic cycle. Yet, every once in a while someone comes along, and whether it is the sound or lyrics or melodic wit, they are significantly different. And if you are familiar enough with theirt type of music, it is not a subjective matter of taste to recognize their uniqueness. In fact, you may even dislike a musician, yet still respect them for their originality.
2- INNOVATION: This may sound very close to originality but where as someone can be naturally original, innovation is about an avant-garde attitude and the courage to set foot where no one did before. Zappa comes to mind as an example. An artist or any art doesn’t have to be innovative to be good of course, an there can be many failed attempts at good innovation. Yet, when someone doesn’t follow the same old formula and try their own thing, it is a perk. Naturally, each genre have its own ways of innovation, if you tell a classical composer that “Oasis is ripping off The Beatles” he may easily go “well, what is there to rip off?” but that is not much different than expecting photographic realism from an anime or historical accuracy in a comedy.
3- PASSION/SINCERITY: Okay, to be frank, we can never really know if this is an act or genuine. But where as some artists just give the impression of “just doing their craft” others make us feel like they are “living the story” they express musically. If it is a love song, we feel they are truly heartbroken, if it is a sad blues, we feel their desperation. If they are faking it, they are faking it so well, it’s still an artistic achievement. Yet, there are artists that almost everyone intersubjectively (not subjectively) agree on being more genuine than others.
4- TECHNIQUE: If music was an army, having better technique would be like having more tanks and planes, you have more power and ammunition to do what you want to do. In popular music, the battlefield is a small one and the technology is not so advanced, having better technique is like having a better revolver, not a jet. So even if you have technical inadequacies, you can compensate with guerrilla tactics such as originality, innovation, passion, sincerity and of course, most of the time, a combination of all of them. Yet, there are still times that technique becomes a significant part of a band’s importance. Led Zeppelin is historical partly because of John Bonham’s drum playing, for instance. Btw, technique is not only about performing, it also determines what you are capable of composing. It is like the relationship Wittgenstein puts between language and cognition.
Keep in mind, what I’m trying to tell you is that, all of these are parameters, not requirements when evaluating a piece of work. You may not be deliberately seeking for them but you will be exposed to them and they will affect your judgement, sometimes without you even being aware of it. And that’s why, even though in theory you seem to be defending an absolute subjectivism, in practice, over the years, I heard both of you guys passing many musical judgements. In fact, only a few days ago, JJ said Rolling Stone’s list of best singers is ridiculous, he didn’t say it doesn’t fit his taste or something, he meant the list was wrong. But there would be no right or wrong if all was subjective, right? Neither would be an overwhelming consensus about historical significance of some musicians, and insignificance of others.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
